The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Most of the exploring was done before the United States was formed or before it extended to the area in question. Also many of the explorers involved explored broad swaths of land that have little correspondence to modern boundaries. Having this type of category as a by continent one is much more useful than by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, and what I've written on the colonial southwest United States category as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
clearly oppose Nomination fails to understand here as elsewhere that we create and maintain history categories based on what happened in an area that is now a poltical area. Examples of this are legion. The purpose of the category is clear: "This category includes articles on explorers of what is now the United States". This allows the category to be placed into the US category tree, which is clearly cannot be done with North America. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people have gone around retroactively imposing the present on the past does not mean it is a good idea. The fact that lots of people engage in this retroactive recreation of the past and imposing the present on it does not make it any better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The parent category ("Explorers of North America" already includes subcategories for Canada, Mexico and Central America. I see no reason to single out the area of the United States as less significant. Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep otherwise you would rip up the whole category's family. or is that what you intend? Ephebi (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The target has 148 articles, which is quite enough. I appreciate the problem that while being explored it was not yet USA, but North America is large enough to need to be split. If we did upmerge, it would be necessary to merge it also to several other paretn categories, but that would produce complications. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but only those explorers prior to 1776. Keep the category for all the explorers after 1776. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Mei County is, correctly, titled as such rather than Meixian (because "Xian" merely means "County"). (This is distinct from the situation where cities or counties in China are named -zhou, because "Zhou," as an administrative unit, no longer exists as such as in Chinese administrative divisions.) Rename. (A potential alternative if people think it would make more sense would be "People from Mei.") --Nlu (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REname per nom. I assume that Xian is invariably translated as "county". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost always. There are some rare cities in China that are <foo>-xian-shi (translatable as City of <foo>-xian) but those are rare, and Mei isn't one of those. --Nlu (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. It satisfies speedy criteria C2D.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There is little point to this category: "Byzantine" almost automatically means "Christian" of some denomination or other and hence encompasses the vast majority of the articles in Byzantine people and subcategories. About the only Byzantine people who were not Christians were the Byzantine Jews and the last polytheist pagans. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost. But not quite. Also, it is restricted to people as opposed to the institutions, structures, buildings or art that may be Christian. For that reason alone it is worth keeping. The main Category:Byzantine Empire is replete with Christian type sub-cats, so some higher order categorisation is especially useful in this cat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to both above. I never said anything about buildings etc. so I don't know where that came from. The fact is that the "Byzantine" identity was a "Christian" identity first and foremost. Byzantium contained little in terms of religious minorities since by 395 when the Empire was split Christianity overwhelmingly dominated the empire and this continued in increased form (Jews excepted) especially after the territorial losses of the 7th century. There was a host of rival Christian sects alongside official Orthodoxy, and of course there were Muslim and pagan subjects, but the latter had a negligible and thoroughly marginalised presence, because if you wanted a state office, you had to be or become Christian. In other words, about 99,99% of "Byzantine" people we are ever going to have an article about, even if we include people known only from their seals or mentioned once in chronicles, are going to be Christian. I can send you volumes on prosopography and you are free to check how many Jews or Muslims you will come across among thousands of names. Comparing with Israel with its third of Arab Muslims, including Knesset members, isn't really an apt comparison, nor is the argument "we agree to subdivide religion categories by nationality" correct because it uses the modern concepts of citizenship and nationality for a wholly different set of circumstances. For instance, we have a Category:People of medieval France, would we really need a "Christians of medieval France" one as well? It goes without saying that there were Jews in medieval France, and possibly a few Muslims in the south, but it also goes without saying that "medieval French person" overwhelmingly equals "Christian". Having a category like this would be correct for pedantry's sake, but for little else. Constantine ✍ 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Byzantine Christians. I don't really have a strong view on deletion vs. keeping; it's the old Category:Irish Roman Catholics issue—if we have (A) and (B), and 99% of people who are in (A) are also in (B), do we need a category for "As who are Bs"? We probably don't need them, but we certainly do have them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As it stands, this is a container category for church people in the Byzantine empire, not just any Christian of the period. As the nomination says, most anyone in the empire can be presumed to be Christian. The category is meaningful and useful as to what it contains (that is, as a church historical category for a certain place and period), but that's not what it says it is. I'm not sure what a good name for it is, but this isn't it. I would also point out that some of the members don't properly belong, such as Category:Patriarchs of Constantinople. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Johnpacklambert's suggestion. Useful parent category. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I cannot see what is wrong with the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solution in search of a problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Now empty. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains pages of no notability. Jprg1966(talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete but Await outcome of the AFDs and PRODs on the episodes. If they are deleted (or redirected to the show article, the category can be deleted as empty (or effectively so). If they are kept, I would suggest that they be listed in a navbox and the category still be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like the three articles that remain are likely to either be deleted or redirected to a general article on the various episodes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Vrhunski sportaši i sportski djelatnici[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and doesn't appear intended to be a category. --Qetuth (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. As I said in the discussion below, anyone can take an article out of this category if they don't think it belongs, as people have mentioned below about 'self-identifying'. delldot∇. 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – my own argument for deleting "Journals by ideology" has no bearing on this one. We have subcat schemes of "x by y" when nearly every x is in one of the ys (eg 'people by nationality' is fine). I would have no issue with Category:Ideological journals. Clearly some journals are marxist. Oculi (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how would creating a category "ideological journals" not equate violating the previous CfD decision to delete "journals by ideology"? If we are going to keep feminist and Marxist journals as separate categories, then the correct name for the category just above would be "Academic journals by ideology", per the naming conventions used in the rest of the category tree. I also find "ideological journals" exceedingly vague. @Alansohn: please note that the "shotgun" nomination for "journals by ideology" was not a delete nomination, but a nomination to rename to "academic journals by ideology", exactly because I anticipated the resistance to deleting Marxist journals and feminist journals. It was the debate participants that did not support a rename but !voted for deletion. But we can't have it both. If we delete "Journals by ideology" because "we don't classify journals by ideology", then I don't see how we can have "Marxist" or "feminist" journals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently you are not following my argument. Oculi (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I do (you mean the "x by y" part, I guess). But I see no way around having a cat "academic journals by ideology", if we are going to have categories that categorize journals by ideology. "Ideological journals" doesn't work for me and I don't see an easy alternative ("Academic journals with a stated ideology"???) --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete journals should be categorized by subject matter, not ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a newspaper or journal calls itself "entertaining", "fair", "unbiased" do we get to categorize them on their self-identification? Hell no. Marxism, Atheist, Christian, Conservative, Liberal, etc. also. A journal covering sports from a Marxist viewpoint is still a sports journal even if the oppressed millionaire ballplayers are being urged to overthrow the capitalist millionaire owners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have long established categories for some of the examples you give of things we don't do. See Category:Christian magazines, Category:Atheism publications. I note that these contain publications ABOUT the topic, not that just happen to be written by people in a group. There is a distinction to be made here about whether a journal is about Marxism or just happens to be published by a Marxist group or have a Marxist slant. --Qetuth (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and journals about Marxism are categorizable;; journals about any-old-thing from a Maxist slant are not. What we have here is "not". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the journals themselves as well as third parties categorize them in this manner, Wikipedia should use that information as a means of categorization rather than stamp our feet and insist that it just can't be done. Putting the word "not" in quotations doesn't make the argument any more than your own personal opinion, which does not appear to outweigh the real-world facts. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly rename, but I think marxist is better as the common term, and making clear it includes journals giving a Marxist perspective about whatever, not just about Marxism/ The inclusion in this is usually clear enough. Whether a journal is avowedly marxist is fairly objective, Conservative and liberal are irrelevant comparisons, as they are broad and multi-meaning. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with DGG, this is an objective term. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
renameCategory:Marxism journals or keep. Marxism is an ideology; Marxist is an adjective for its proponent. The difference between the two possible names may be whether they are discussing marxism or propagating it. I susect there are some political newssheets that might go into this or a sibling category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only for those journals which 'self-identify' as Marxist. If it doesn't have Marxist on the label, then it doesn't belong here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as defining characteristic. Marxist is not always a pejorative term, particularly in cases of self-identification. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All publications listed define themselves as Marxist.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Objective name. "Marxism journals" would work equally well. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: In an earlier CfD, my request to rename "Journals by ideology" to "Academic journals by ideology" was rejected in favor of deletion, because a majority of participants in that discussion found it undesirable to categorize journals by ideology. Because of that, the category "Marxist journals" has no plausible parent category left. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. This does not preclude removal of any article from the category that someone feels does not belong there (e.g. journals that do not 'self-identify' as feminist, as someone mentioned below). delldot∇. 05:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category to which this one belonged, "Journals by ideology", was deleted after this CFD. Basically, all arguments for deleting that category also go for this one. Categorizing academic journals by (perceived) ideology is a dicy thing at best and obviously undesirable. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not categorization based on what Wikipedia editors "perceive" the ideology is of these publications, this is the expressly stated ideology and purpose of these journals. The category includes Agenda (feminist journal), Camera Obscura (journal), Feminist Africa and Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy. Agendadescribes itself here "as a feminist media organisation in Africa, [that] aims to achieve the goal of eradicating gender inequality and empowering women. Accordingly, Agenda is committed to giving women a forum, a voice and skills to articulate their needs and interests to transform unequal gender relations." Per the journal's website, "Camera Obscura provides a forum for scholarship and debate on feminism, culture, and media studies." The other two seem to be no-braniers, but see the sites of Feminist Africa and Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, where each publication explicitly discusses its feminist ideology as part of the basic approach of the publication, if there is any doubt. This is exactly what categories are for; Not categorizing in this manner is dicey and undesirable. Alansohn (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... furthermore, the Association of College and Research Libraries, has assembled a category of its own (see here) that includes all of these publications on its "Core List of Journals for Women and Gender Studies", which covers publications written "from a feminist perspective within the humanities, sciences and social sciences." Based on self-description and categorization by experts on the subject, this would appear to be a textbook means of categorization within Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – much as for Marxist above. Oculi (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my comment above. My apologies for having two different CfDs here, I just didn't know how to do a multiple one... --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete journals should be categorized by subject matter, not ideology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The journals describe themselves based on their ideology and outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored because of your arbitrary preference? Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has created or proposed creation of categories for "entertaining journals", "fair journals" or "unbiased journals", nor does there appear to be any third parties that categorize publications as "entertaining", "fair" or "unbiased", while here in reality the journals describe themselves based on their ideology AND outside authorities also group them in this manner. Why should those real-world factors demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic be ignored? Why should the manufactures example of a Bizarro World Marxist sports journal and other nonsensical hypotheticals be used as justifications for deletion of an actual category that groups journals by a strong defining characteristic that exists in the real world? Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Alansohn's links show, this is a valid defining characteristic. And I also argue that 'feminism' IS the content matter, not just the ideaology. That this category was previously in a category you didn't like, or created by someone you don't like the work of, does not change this. --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Feminism journals - changing vote per my comments in above nomination - Makes clearer this category is for journals about feminism, not journals written by feminists. -- Qetuth (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an objective term, and does not reflect the bias of the editors. Dimadick (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename as Qetuth. Personally I dislike the use of nouns as if they were adjectives, so that I would prefer "keep". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only for those journals which self-identify as Feminist. This includes journals that advocate out-of mainstream views, so no purging the category of 'bad feminists'. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeping this and the above category is a recipe for creating a lot of heated edit wars... --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as defining characteristic. Feminist is not always a pejorative term, particularly in cases of self-identification. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Feminism is an academic subfield to which these journals self-identify. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Objective term. Maybe a rename to "Women's Studies Journals"? Carrite (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 1/ There is a Category:Women's studies journals. 2/ "Feminism" is not an academic field, it is an ideology. In an earlier CfD, my request to rename "Journals by ideology" to "Academic journals by ideology" was rejected in favor of deletion, because a majority of participants in that discussion found it undesirable to categorize journals by ideology. Because of that, the category "feminist journals" has no plausible parent category left. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent article Tim Buppert was deleted. Contains only two songs anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as main article space has gone. Number of members not relevant. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Surplus category. This category appears as a sub category under Category:Organisations based in Rajasthan. It was presumably created when the originator could not find their preferred spelling of organisation. Malcolma (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Is there any reason that the "noble persons" cannot simply be placed in the "nobility" category? Right now some are in both categories. There is no overall scheme of Category:Noble persons, and the term seems synonymous with Category:Nobility. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Nobility is the standard form for such things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. (I think this is also what John intended). --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The distinction is rather arbitrary and the use of "persons" in any title should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. But appears to be based on the peculiar split of Norwegian nobility? --Qetuth (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No distinction between these categories. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the general practice is to tack people onto the country name when an adjectival form does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Category:People of former countries, there are 104 entries of which 5 are not really poeple type articles. Of the remainder, over 39% use the form "People of Foo". So while "Foo people" might be the majority, one could hardly say that it constitutes "general pracrtice". And what's wrong with countires or empires that don't have a convenient adjectival form? Is that such a big sin? In the cases of empires, it reads very awkwardly. I think that "People of Foo" should be accepted as a legitimate alternative form that may in fact be preferable in some cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The suggested name is the general standard, and has the benefit of being shorter. I can see no reason to have different standards for current vs. former countries. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom and Good Ol'Factory Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Historians in the Mughal Empire. There were 3 supporters of the "from" version, but no objections to the "in" version, and I know that the last people to comment did have reasoned objections to the "from" version. So my thinking is that the thing most people are likely to be ok with is the "in" version. delldot∇. 05:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is meant to be a by nationality category. The nation is the Mughal Empire. Mughal alone is often used to refer to the rulers or the specific group of people who the rulers came out of, we want this to be a general category for any subject of the empire who was a hisotrian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That should be renamed as well, since that is even more ambiguous, as it could refer to historians who publish in English, along with the nationals, and those who cover English history but are or not from England. -- 76.65.130.165 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate suggesion of "Historians from the Mughul Empire" per rationale from my proposal above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The Mughal Empire is long gone, but we have an article about the Mughal tribe still extant in South Asia. Any particular reason against using "Mughal" as an ethnic term? Dimadick (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- Category:Historians in the Mughal Empire. The category is about historians from the Mughal period. I do not like "from", which sounds like they have left it; not "of", which would cover modern hisotians writing about that period of India. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Peterkingiron. Clears up the ambiguity. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale the standard form for people by nationality when there is no adjectival form is to take people after the name of the country involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Category:People of former countries, there are 104 entries of which 5 are not really poeple type articles. Of the remainder, over 39% use the form "People of Foo". So while "Foo people" might be the majority, one could hardly say that it constitutes "general pracrtice". And what's wrong with countires or empires that don't have a convenient adjectival form? Is that such a big sin? In the cases of empires, it reads very awkwardly. I think that "People of Foo" should be accepted as a legitimate alternative form that may in fact be preferable in some cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The suggested name is the general standard, and has the benefit of being shorter. I can see no reason to have different standards for current vs. former countries. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
